The ultimate secret of free energy: Split the postive AND the negative

[DrStiffler]

Hi Lamare,

I've been studying that article at PESWiki and editing it. Except for a very few persons, most guys are not helping out on this project and I'm starting to lose interest in helping some of them. Thank you for all your input and hard work on this!!! You have shared a lot.

Best Regards,
Slovenia

@lamare

The circuit you show (dated 9/9/10) will not work the way you envision and in fact will not do much at all.

Remember the AM modulation concept, you have say a 100W carrier. To obtain in an ideal circuit 100% modulation of the carrier you need a modulator of 100W. You therefore in ideal circuit, obtain a carrier that just about approaches (0) (otherwise distortion) signal carrier valley, to a 200W carrier peak.

In the receiver the carrier is discarded (filtered out) and only the modulation component is processed and amplified for recovery. Now in your circuit where is the detection portion? In other-words you will via skin effect swamp you output (load with a combination of both the modulation and the RF, n nothing is present to separate it from the load. Indeed any lower frequency action on the load side would be reduced in reflection back to the driver (depending on the caps and coils in series), yet this will not work as shown, at least not what you want from it.

Here is a thought to process. In AM modulation, just how did the old crystal radio develop enough audio recovery from a uV RF signal? No it was not because the user had miles of antenna.

Anyway just my two cents for the day. Good Luck with the venture.

[Slovenia]

Dr Stiffler

Dr.Stiffler,

Your help has been much appreciated!!

Best Regards,
Slovenia

[DrStiffler]

Don't Destroy the Dipole

Well I have time for one more post, so guess I will tick off a bunch of people.

Just what is 'Do Not Destroy the Dipole' anyway? Isn't that a cop out, common sense. Okay a battery can be considered a dipole and so can a permanent magnet, so saying we want a circuit that does not destroy it is saying what?
Well my take is it is saying we need a form of energy conversion in order to do our work and not use up the source (dipole). Really the statement is meaningless and says nothing about the approach.

If all the broadcasters of don't destroy the dipole understood it, then why not apply it? Many are very good mathematicians and granted may not be able to solder, but really, there are those that can and can follow instruction.

I get blasted from all sides and care less because it all comes back to energy conversion. Forget the dipole, convert form to different form.

I don't like the this PestWicked site as they have yet to say anything good about my direction or work so I can not bring myself to offer them anything worth value either.

[Slovenia]

I understand how you feel.

I understand how you must feel. I was a moderator researcher for several alternate fuel sites for several years and got mostly grief from the whole affair. So, I'm not as laid back as I used to be either.

I don't like the this PestWicked site as they have yet to say anything good about my direction or work so I can not bring myself to offer them anything worth value either.

[Aaron]

maintaining the dipole

Dr. Stiffler,

The mention of not destroying the dipole is just a reference to not needing
to have the battery or other input source in a continuous power mode
or 100% duty cycle, which closes the loop permanently, which of course
will kill the dipole.

It is also a reference to having a potential difference established where
the potential itself is used for charging a battery for example and where
the connection itself is broke before real current starts to flow. By real
current I mean the normal amount of current that would be associated with
whatever particular voltage from whatever particular battery and whatever
particular load - Using the dipole in impulses sort of where the normal ratio
of voltage and current is changed so that there is less current per voltage
than normal and this helps to maintain the dipole without killing it and
still be able to get the same amount of work. This is the concept anyway.

Theoretically, the dipole can be maintained permanently. But usually
even with more efficient non-permanent closed loop methods of drawing
from the source dipole, the potential difference at the terminals will still
reduce. What I mean by dipole can be maintained permanently is that
the potential difference doesn't drop.

And also the concept that the amount of Heaviside flow from the positive to
negative over the wires - only 1/11 trillionth I believe is what is used by
the circuit to attract the "electrons" in the opposite direction (current)
so virtually everything that is there isn't being put to use. So it isn't a
matter of getting enough potential - there is enough there and if we can
utilize what is not normally being put to use, then we have all we need
without having to kill the dipole (IF we can put it all to use). That is
why in concept, a AA battery supplies enough potential to power a
battleship - we just haven't been able to make use of all the flow, just a
sliver.

[Aaron]

not "killing the dipole"

If all the broadcasters of don't destroy the dipole understood it, then why not apply it?

I have many times. With batteries and regular capacitors as power sources
and capacitors that I altered to become electrets. The electret cap for
example can be used to "charge" another cap to a certain voltage potential,
disconnect that regular cap from the electret cap and then use that to
power a led, dump to a battery, etc... then reconnect to the electret cap
and repeat. That is getting work from nothing more than potential supplied
initially by an electret cap.

That is just one example and is a practical application of understanding
what to do with the potential once I have it while not having the source
dipole decrease in its own potential difference.

Anyway, connecting that electret cap potential to another cap brings up
another point - it works because the impedance of the cap I'm connecting
it to is ultra low and it doesn't short it out so to speak.

The same applies to a solar cell. Open voltage may be 24v for example on
a 12v 1amp solar cell like one that I have. As soon as you connect anything
with any kind of impedance, it shorts the cell 24v down to 12v or whatever.

But if you take that solar cell and see 24v at the leads, you can take that
and connect it to a cap to get the full 24v potential without shorting
the cell. Putting that potential to something with ultra low impedance
allows us to get the full potential without "killing the source dipole". That
is another practical application and it works. Of course the sun is free,
but the point is that all that 24v potential can be used if taken properly
but if put to a load with any real impedance, we lose the 24v potential
and have maybe half that. So on a solar cell, we can utilize the full
potential without killing the dipole of it's full potential.

We can do similar things with batteries, etc...

[Slovenia]

Lamare's PESWiki File in PDF Format

Here is Lamare's PESWiki file in pdf format. I'm in the process of editing it.

[gyula]

...
But if you take that solar cell and see 24v at the leads, you can take that
and connect it to a cap to get the full 24v potential without shorting
the cell. Putting that potential to something with ultra low impedance
allows us to get the full potential without "killing the source dipole". That
is another practical application and it works. Of course the sun is free,
but the point is that all that 24v potential can be used if taken properly
but if put to a load with any real impedance, we lose the 24v potential
and have maybe half that. So on a solar cell, we can utilize the full
potential without killing the dipole of it's full potential.

We can do similar things with batteries, etc...

Hi Aaron,

Unfortunately, charging up an empty capacitor needs energy that is taken out from a battery, a solar cell etc. And slowly you source dipole is killed in case of a battery if you do not take care of recharging it but then it needs outside energy. (Of course when using a solar cell you do not have to care about recharging.)

There is one more problem: when you charge up a cap from a source dipole the amount of energy you take out is mainly governed by the capacitor value. If you use a very 'big' capacitor like say a supercap so that you do have a decent energy source to supply a load, then the source dipole also "suffers" (loses energy) while charges up the supercap (or a very big value cap).

I understand you can charge up a cap many times from a battery but all that happens is you slow down the "killing process" because you do the discharging intermittently.

I also understand that you can have a higher energy output from a cap than what is stored in it if you discharge it in a very short time. Tesla nicely described it. (Say you store 10 Joule in a cap and you discharge it in half a second you can have 20 Joule for that half second.)
BUT unless you can gain some extra energy from the very quick discharge, all you do is consuming the cap's energy by your load in a faster way. So you have to charge it up more frequently from the source dipol, this involves consuming more and more energy from the source dipole: you have to recharge it if it is a battery. If it is a solar cell you load it more frequently by charging up the cap but if you think it over you cannot utilize as much energy from the cell (if you choose the charge / disharge process) as in a continuos operation without using the cap (switching losses).

I would yet like to see a practical setup where a source dipole can trigger a process that involves energy gain, preferably without using rechargable batteries anywhere in the process, except for a startup.

rgds, Gyula

[Aaron]

maintaining the dipole

Hi Aaron,

Unfortunately, charging up an empty capacitor needs energy that is taken out from a battery, a solar cell etc. And slowly you source dipole is killed in case of a battery if you do not take care of recharging it but then it needs outside energy. (Of course when using a solar cell you do not have to care about recharging.)

There is one more problem: when you charge up a cap from a source dipole the amount of energy you take out is mainly governed by the capacitor value. If you use a very 'big' capacitor like say a supercap so that you do have a decent energy source to supply a load, then the source dipole also "suffers" (loses energy) while charges up the supercap (or a very big value cap).

I understand you can charge up a cap many times from a battery but all that happens is you slow down the "killing process" because you do the discharging intermittently.

I also understand that you can have a higher energy output from a cap than what is stored in it if you discharge it in a very short time. Tesla nicely described it. (Say you store 10 Joule in a cap and you discharge it in half a second you can have 20 Joule for that half second.)
BUT unless you can gain some extra energy from the very quick discharge, all you do is consuming the cap's energy by your load in a faster way. So you have to charge it up more frequently from the source dipol, this involves consuming more and more energy from the source dipole: you have to recharge it if it is a battery. If it is a solar cell you load it more frequently by charging up the cap but if you think it over you cannot utilize as much energy from the cell (if you choose the charge / disharge process) as in a continuos operation without using the cap (switching losses).

I would yet like to see a practical setup where a source dipole can trigger a process that involves energy gain, preferably without using rechargable batteries anywhere in the process, except for a startup.

rgds, Gyula

Hi Gyula,

Please reread my post, I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm
saying.

First of all, a battery is not filled up with energy and therefore cannot
supply energy to charge a cap. It is a dipole meaning it has a potential
difference at the terminals. The terminals having a different potential
difference breaks the "homogenous" symmetry of vacuum potential in
its vicinity.

When that symmetry is broken, you then have a potential difference.
The polarized vacuum potential moves TOWARDS the terminals of
the battery and then over the wires. Positive potential flows from
the vacuum, to the positive terminal and over the wire towards a lower
potential ground or the negative terminal. And the same thing happens
in the opposite direction with the negative potential. The electrons
in the 3rd electron field of the copper atoms that make up the wires
are most loosely bound and these are yanked out of orbit and are
attracted towards the positive terminal. The positive potential flowing
over the wire (Heaviside flow) is what is pulling these electrons out of
orbit - they get yanked out and move towards the positive terminal and
then drop into the orbit to replace the hole left by the electron that left.
It performs this hopping and jiggling down the wire and this is what the
current loss on a circuit is. And that is if electrons even exist.


The potential that "charges" a capacitor did NOT come from inside the
battery, it came from the environmental vacuum potential.

If the loop is closed between a cap and battery, bulb and battery, etc...,
half of the potential is used to supply the potential do do work and the
other half of the potential is "killing the dipole" by having the positive
potential for example that is moving over the wire to the negative terminal
and as it moves towards the negative terminal that positive potential is
repelling the positive "charges" of the polarized electrolytes inside the
battery and that causes them to disorder at a certain rate and that
disordering is what reduces the potential difference at the terminals. And
not because the battery ran out of something.

So when you charge a battery, you're not filling it up. You're polarizing
the electrolytes again so there is a larger potential difference at the
terminals. It didn't get filled up with "charge."

This is just like a magnet, as Dr. Stiffler mentions is a dipole. And the
vacuum potential that has its symmetry broken by the polarized material
of the magnet establishes a magnetic field around the magnet. When you
do work with a magnet, it doesn't run out of anything because the
substance that the magnetic field is made of doesn't come from the
material of the magnet, it also comes from the vacuum potential or aether.

Slowing down the "killing" of the battery is desirable and isn't in itself
"not killing the dipole". However, there are ways to do this where the
battery is not slowly being killed but the potential differences are
completely maintained.

Yes, impulse is what you're talking about and this is how you can get
a million watt pulse from small potential, etc... by compressing the entire
potential discharge into a small unit of time. Time IS what is locked up
in the impulse discharge.

Now with the solar cell, you have to really understand the point. Let's
say you have a fixed light source on the cell that does not change. Let's
say that the voltage potential at the terminals of the cell is 24v, you
can maintain that 24v potential forever by simply putting that 24v to
a very low impedance "container" like a capacitor. You are simply using
that potential at 24v to establish another potential difference of 24v
which does NOT reduce the 24v at the solar cell.

Having a fixed light source on the cell would be like having a battery that
you have the voltage potential maintained without dropping it while being
able to utilize that 12v battery potential to establish other 12v potentials
or 24v by charging 2 X 12v caps in parallel then connecting them in series,
etc... such as the Tesla Switch concept, etc... When doing it properly,
you essentially have a fixed light source or a fixed potential difference
at the battery, which does not change.

This goes beyond simply pulsing the battery to a cap.

This is an application as you describe just to prove the point in one of
many ways.

YouTube - Self Running Bedini Oscillator

That circuit works with or without the ground rod - just better with.
I have done many variations of that circuit and they all work and the
capacitor on the front maintains it's potential difference or voltage.

[Web000x]

Now with the solar cell, you have to really understand the point. Let's
say you have a fixed light source on the cell that does not change. Let's
say that the voltage potential at the terminals of the cell is 24v, you
can maintain that 24v potential forever by simply putting that 24v to
a very low impedance "container" like a capacitor. You are simply using
that potential at 24v to establish another potential difference of 24v
which does NOT reduce the 24v at the solar cell.

Aaron,

I have read many of your posts and your two publicized books, and do think that you are very intelligent. I must say that I don't see where the usable power is coming from out of this conversation.

I don't understand what exactly is being claimed when you add a capacitor to the output of your solar panel other that what is already known in conventional engineering. In most DC power supplies, there is a rather large capacitor that helps regulate the voltage when a load is present.

I understand that conventional electrical engineering is a load of crap, but the observation of displacement current is very real.

Displacement current is responsible for keeping the capacitor refilled. I see how the 24 volts would be maintained in your solar setup, but if you loaded your solar panel -> cap -> load setup down with anything SUBSTANTIAL, you would drop back down to your 12 volts rated. There is always some amount of power (V x I) being drawn if you continue draining the capacitor.

We can do similar things with batteries, etc...

But won't we still have displacement current charging the capacitor and killing the dipole of the battery since it doesn't have a "source of light" to maintain its dipolarity?

I am not claiming that there are not ways to preserve a dipole. Only that my observations have always been that dipoles provide current when charging a capacitor thus killing the dipole. It always draws current to charge and recharge.

If you have experimental data that I should see that suggests otherwise, please let me know. I am all ears for a replication.



Dave

[Aaron]

potential differences

Displacement current is responsible for keeping the capacitor refilled. I see how the 24 volts would be maintained in your solar setup, but if you loaded your solar panel -> cap -> load setup down with anything SUBSTANTIAL, you would drop back down to your 12 volts rated. There is always some amount of power (V x I) being drawn if you continue draining the capacitor.

But won't we still have displacement current charging the capacitor and killing the dipole of the battery since it doesn't have a "source of light" to maintain its dipolarity?

I am not claiming that there are not ways to preserve a dipole. Only that my observations have always been that dipoles provide current when charging a capacitor thus killing the dipole. It always draws current to charge and recharge.

If you have experimental data that I should see that suggests otherwise, please let me know. I am all ears for a replication.



Dave

Hi Dave, thanks for the comment.

The idea that "electron current" charges a cap by piling electrons on
a plate, etc... is just a popular model with flaws so it can never even
be a real theory even though it is treated as one by conventional wisdom.

"Unfortunately, to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the
prehistoric conception of the electrostatic charge (electron) on the
conductor still exists....and makes the consideration of dielectric fields
unnecessarily complicated." - Charles Proteus Steinmetz

"The misconception that capacitance is the result of accumulating
electrons has seriously distorted our view of dielectric phenomena."
- Eric Dollard

If it isn't too far off topic, here is one highly qualified perspective of
capacitance from Eric Dollard:
Eric Dollard Notes (1986--1991)

You can see pages 26-29.

What is your personal take on Eric Dollard's explanation?

Anyway, if the battery voltage does not drop - if it can be tricked
so it doesn't drop, that is an accurate analogy of a solar panel with
a non-stop source of light. It is no different. That means the voltage
potential is able to be maintained.

You take the cap, hook it to the 24v on the solar panel, remove the cap,
and dump it to a battery. Then reconnect the cap to a solar panel,
it gets to 24v, remove cap and dump to battery. Repeat. There is no
connecting a load directly to the solar panel at all and the 24v will be
maintained at the leads without it dropping down.

Let's say for example I have a capacitor that has been modified into
being an electret. For example 9 volts at 33,000 uf. I can short the
terminals of the capacitor, the voltage drops to zero. If I un-short
the terminals, the voltage pops right back up to 9 v and of course at
33,000 uf. If I take another cap, a regular 60v 33,000uf cap and connect
it to that "electret" cap, it will get the voltage of that second cap to 9v.
I can remove that cap and dump it to a 6v battery for example or
hook it to a few led's to make them flash (or burn them out), etc...
I can take the cap after the "charge" is gone and reconnect it to the
electret cap and it is back up to 9v and then remove the cap and put
back to some load and repeat.

Even though if you short the leads on the electret cap for example, it
pops back up, but the main point is that you can put a cap to it to get
it "charged" remove it and apply to load. Put back to electret cap to
charge it remove and power load, repeat.

The electret cap is simply not depleting or reducing any amount of
anything anymore than a magnet depletes by having it do work. Basically,
it is simply a dipole that breaks the symmetry of the vacuum and all
the potential to "charge" the secondary cap comes from external, that
is what a dipole does. The electret cap simply is not transferring a unit
of electrons from itself to the secondary cap. A potential difference is
being established by not by this electron piling idea.

The current you measure when you charge a cap is not what is charging
the cap, that is just a measurement of your losses - that is all the
meter measures - and it does so not by measuring electron current, it
does it by measuring the voltage difference across a resistor inside of that
amp meter or multimeter.

We know the pressure of the aetheric gas is measurable as voltage
and that is all we're measuring in order to assume there is x amount of
associated "electron current."

If the capacitor is being filled, then why can I put another cap to it,
"charge" that cap remove it and apply that secondary cap to a load and
get work? All the while the primary cap maintains it's voltage potential
difference at the terminals?

The same thing can be accomplished with some of my concentric tubes
in a water cell. Once they are conditioned with the calcium and/or
magnesium oxide type coating, whatever it really is, it establishes a
permanent voltage potential difference when submerged in water. Usually
2-3 volts. I can short it all day long and it always pops back and attaching
a cap to it "charges" the cap to 2-3 volts - whatever voltage the cell
is at. The water cell isn't running out of anything.

Of course this concept is much easier with caps than batteries, I'm not
going to argue it is easy to do with a battery but it can be done. I've done
it in quite a few experiments with batteries where not only the voltage
was maintained but sometimes even rose while powering a load and not
with fluffy voltage on top, but with maintaining the real load powering
capability of the battery. One was a variation of the Tesla Switch that
John showed - not exactly that but similar.

I've also damaged a handful of batteries in the tests and wound up with
some electret batteries that just won't die. Hooking a load with any kind
of resistance to them flat-lines the voltage and when releasing, the
battery pops back up. BUT, it will charge a cap to the same voltage
without dropping the "source dipole's" voltage.

If we want to lump a self runner or any circuit into the mix and consider
that an authentic way to maintain a dipole so it provides potential for work
but doesn't decrease then there are actually quite a few other things that
have worked.

The very first Ainslie circuit I did had a 10 ohm resistor - a small one
compared to the others I used and for a current sensing resistor,
I also used a 10 ohm resistor because it was the smallest I had and
didn't want to parallel a bunch of them. I wound up using later a 0.25
for those measurements.

Anyway, being that there was so much resistance in series and at the
frequencies I was switching that mosfet at, the circuit was basically a
gas pump (for the Heaviside gas - positive potential of the vacuum, etc...).
Which is what all circuits are anyway in my opinion, but the point was that
the voltage was taken out of its regular ratio with the normally associated
current. The power battery climbed above the resting voltage for about
24 hours and when it started to come down a bit, it took about 18
or so more hours before it dropped back down to the voltage where it was
at before I started the test. The high resistance of 20 ohms worth
of resistance coupled by the fact that the magnetic field of the
inductive resistor choked off more current - it was nearly a pure radiant
charge in the truest sense.

The battery voltage did wind up dropping below the initial resting voltage
but not much and I stopped the test soon after because it took too long.
Already waited about 2-3 days and it didn't hardly move. So it all comes
down to tuning the timing and balancing the gas pressure throughout
the circuit (having the correct amount of impedance where you want
it).

As a distinction, I think getting a circuit to "take" from the battery
in a way that doesn't kill it is WAAAAY more elegant and desirable
than to have the battery give power in a way that drains it that
provides the potential to cause another potential difference elsewhere
and so on multiple stages that eventually winds up with enough to
send back to the front. It is apparent that authentic solutions
along these lines are going to be popping out of the woodwork
especially over the next couple years.

The Velijko 2 stage oscillator is such a device that allows for a very
long sustaining of the dipole. It is all about creating the potential
differences. Yes, it goes down, but who cares if the amplification is
many times? If we can move 1 pound to move 10 pounds, the system
is built in a way that doesn't quickly kill the dipole.

The pendulum is swinging. You then short circuit the machine's load
by holding down the hammer, the thing doing the intended work. When
you hold it down, the pendulum, the oscillating part that has periodic
changing relationships with the downward push of the aether, continues
to swing. The pendulum is the timer being run almost completely on
free gravitational potential and just partly on our initial lift.

Anyway, you short circuit the oscillator and maintain an equilibrium at
that point (hammer held firmly on anvil) yet the dipole is maintained. Yes,
it dwindles down with each swing, that is supposed to happen obviously,
but you simply do NOT flat line it such as you would experience if you
short circuited a conventional electric motor or other circuit. Short
circuiting the load or what it comes down to is you're short circuiting
the source dipole and trying to flatline the voltage like NOW.

But in an open circuit, or one that is at least open part of or even most of
the time to external environmental input, gravitational potential here,
you short circuit the load (keep hammer motionless on top of anvil),
and the source dipole is maintained for a LOOOONG time.

The input and output are not locked - a machine like a grasshopper
oil well pump does have the front and back locked to each other. The large
weight is not benefiting from free gravitational potential, it is only
there to balance the system. But don't want balance, at least I don't.
If you stopped the weight, it would stall the motor. If you stall the
motor, you stop the weight from moving.

So the mechanical oscillator is 100% consistent with the concept of
having a non-equilibrium system being able to maintain it's source dipole
by having a non-fixed relationship between the input and output.

The electret caps, solar panel, etc... all have non-fixed relationships
between input and output.

Lamare, I apologize if this is too off topic. Please let me know.

[lamare]

Lamare, I apologize if this is too off topic. Please let me know.

Don't worry. This is the "food for thought" topic. Anything is welcome here as far as I'm concerned...

[lamare]

First of all, a battery is not filled up with energy and therefore cannot
supply energy to charge a cap. It is a dipole meaning it has a potential
difference at the terminals. The terminals having a different potential
difference breaks the "homogenous" symmetry of vacuum potential in
its vicinity.

One of the most important things to realize is that the electric field is the cause for currents to occur. Aaron calls this "potential", but IMHO it is better to call it "the electric field", because that's what it is. The term "potential" suggests we are talking about a static force akin to "pressure" in hydraulics, the Newtonian analogy we basically use in our normal circuit analysis.

There is a significant difference between the static analogy we are used to work with and the actual physical situation. In the actual situation the force we consider to be a static pressure-like force is a dynamic force, it's a flow of energy. To call this flow of energy "potential" is confusing IMHO, because a propagating electric field is just not the same thing as a pressure-like "potential".

I explain this in my article as follows:
Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

So there we are. The electric field (the airflow in our fandoor analogy) is on the one hand powered by the vacuum and on the other hand it powers the vacuum. So, at least part of the energy in space / the vacuum, referred to with names as "Zero Point Energy" (ZPE), virtual particle flux, the Dirac sea, Orgone, etc. is not only fueled by the electric field, it is continuously converted back into an electric field by each and every charged particle in the universe, which makes the electric field a source of energy. The implications of that are staggering. It means that the law of conservation of energy does not apply to electrical systems, because they are not isolated. After all, Turtur shows without a shadow of a doubt that energy is being extracted from the active vacuum by each and every charged particle and thus every electrical system in existence in the Universe.

Based on all this, it is clear that we need to look at electrical systems in a different way, we need a way of thinking that does account for the energy source that is really powering our systems. In a way, we need a similar change in our models as the change from Newton to quantum mechanics. While Newtonian mechanics can still be used in mechanical engineering most of the time, at some point they are no longer valid, for example in the calculation of satellite orbits. In the same way, the current electrical engineering model is fine for most applications where it suffices to consider only the door part of our fandoor analogy, that is, by considering electrical systems basically as an analogy of hydraulics, which is literally just a variation of Newtonian mechanics. However, if you want to be able to utilize the energy source the electric field provides, there just ain't no way to do that without taking the energy exchange between an electrical system and the vacuum completely into account.

So, let's do that. In the old Newtonian model, we consider the voltage across an impedance to be the cause for a current to occur, which in our fandoor anology would be the pressure that the door "feels" being enacted by the airflow on its surface, while in reality it is the airflow (the electric) field that acts upon the door and not the pressure itself. In other words it seems like the "pressure" the electric field enacts on our components is static, hence the name "static electric field", while in actual reality this force is a dynamic force, something flows along the surface that creates the pressure. [...]


There is an essential difference between the Newtonian analogy we use in electrical engineering (closed circuits) and the actual reality. The analogy of a capacitor in hydraulics (Newtonian analogy) is a piston moving back and forth in a closed cylinder wherein gas is pressurized. And here's the difference: Imagine moving the piston inwards, pressurizing the gas, and put the thing on your workbench. The piston will immediately move back, because of the gas pressure. Now charge a capacitor and put it on your workbench. See the difference? The capacitor will just sit there, keeping it's charge. In other words: our hydraulic analogy is unstable, it 'wants' to release it's energy, while our actual electrical component is stable when 'pressurized'. It will only 'release' it's energy when something external is being done. It has to be disturbed, because the charges in a capacitor actually attract one another, which makes them like to stay where they are. So, when 'discharging' a capacitor, as a matter of fact, these attraction forces have to be overcome. And that does not release energy at all, it costs energy to do that. So, it actually takes the same amount of energy to charge a capacitor as the amount of energy it takes to discharge the capacitor.

[lamare]

I'll leave you with that to chew on...

I think I'll leave this chew for a later moment.

To me, it is very interesting to figure out what actually goes on eventually. But at the moment I am focussing on how Gray, Meyer and Puharich were able to extract energy from the vacuum. In order to explain that, all I need to know is that the electric field we are used to work with is a dynamic force, a flow of energy, and that we can use that energy with some trickery. For that purpose, Turtur's story is more than sufficient, because I don't need to know how/where the energy eventually comes from in order to be able to engineer working circuits that make use of this free energy source.

--::--

For those interested in the theories by Eric Dollard, I have uploaded some documents to my website I got my hands on some time ago:
Bestandsoverzicht van /pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/

This one is very interesting. Here he explains Tesla's transmission technology, like his magnifying transmitter, the way I think it should be done:
Theory of Wireless Power by Eric Dollard.pdf


I also uploaded the pdf made by Slovenia and a new pdf for my article to:
Bestandsoverzicht van /pdf/

Here you can also find an OCR'ed version of Mueller's report on the Kromrey Converter and the "Tesla switch" with some updated photo's from Bedini's site, etc.:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/MUELLER_EXPER...SLA_BEDINI.pdf

[Slovenia]

Great Material

Lamare,

Thanks for sharing the links. You have a collection of some great material.

Best Regards,
Slovenia